1. I haven't claimed anyone should come to Israel. Those were not decisions taken on the basis of "ethnicity", but on religion, close to a century ago. 2. DISTINCTIVE ALBEIT CLOSELY RELATED. See the DISTINCTIVE part? That's the part you should be focusing on.
No, I understand that and the 'genetic' argument is a decent one in favour of a jewish homeland in Israel. The problem I have with it is that it cuts both ways, (i.e. in support of the Palestinians as well), but also that it's hardly definitive, as much as anything because, generally, if you leave somewhere thousands of years ago, you're not usually entitled to go back there again just because you feel like it.
Uhmmm, no. yet again, you show how little you know, or care, about your adopted home. Please leave. foreigners own manhattan now.
First, let me set this straight, I think the Jews claim on Israel is debatable at best, so that's not my point. But it seemed to me that you were denying that claim because of the lack of genetic commonality, which I think if you wanted to take it to its logical conclusion would mean the end of the nation state. Moreover, though I must admit I'm having trouble following your posts on the subject, I see ethnic distinctions between people all the time even though, yes, there has been a lot of mixing.
FFS I wrote a big long screed about the possible death of the nation state and then we had a power-cut and I lost it Anyway, I mentioned people's attitude in Europe to being europeans and how it was different to how it would have been, say, 50 years ago. The fact that the US started out as 'states' which 'united' and also this piece I read on AL Jazeera English... http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201134154351741689.html So, I don't know but maybe there is a long term movement towards the end of the nation state. TBH, though, is that such a bad idea because there's only a difference of emphasis between pride in ones nation state and nationalism. Also, bear in mind that the idea of nation state preeminence was only really provided by the westphalian treaties back in... er... the 1640's or whenever it was. However, that's probably a side issue. I guess I'm having a hard time getting to grips with the whole idea of 'ethnicity' in the absence of any DNA or other data but my main point would be, is that important? I can directly trace my family in the the south of England to the 1700's and, by DNA genealogy where I can trace others with family in that area, to several hundred years beyond that. As I was born and brought up in that area I suppose life is quite simple for me but, as you can see, I don't live there now so, are my offspring, born 'oop north', 'ethnic' southerners or not? More to the point would their children be 'ethnic' southerners? So my question is, if you strip out the DNA and genealogical facts what does someone's ethnicity mean? I guess the obvious answer is a person's cultural heritage, (which would include his religion presumably), but the problem with THAT is, it can change. In the UK, as you know, we have had an influx of people from the Indian sub-continent. However, the vast bulk of their descendants have now largely been assimilated into the British culture or, more accurately, we've both been absorbed into a joint culture. As someone who greatly enjoys the new British favourite dish, curry, that strikes me as a fine idea So, to my mind, in an increasingly connected and global world, the fact that people don't share a common ancestry, culture or even DNA is, frankly, irrelevant. It's how they FEEL about the people they live alongside that matters and it's that will make for a cohesive society in the long run.
On a somewhat related issue (sorry if there is a thread on it - I must have missed it) the reaction to that commission thing - Peter King wants to investigate the problem of radicalisation in the Muslim community is weird - they have been protesting on the streets about it coming out with all sorts of bullshit (not unlike Jon Stewart). The fact that King is an IRA supporter is a bit of a distraction.
I have to diagree strongly. The Jews claim on pre-'67 Israel borders are hardly debateable either historically (as Jews have historically lived in this region since the founding of the religion) or via international law. I think Israel's de facto annexation of the West Bank and the continued control over Gaza are highly debatable, though.
Would you say they are any stronger than the claim of Palestinians to pre-67 israeli borders? the israelites weren't the original occupants according to Torah, they ethnically cleansed the area of Canaanites.
Boy, do I really want to wade into this? Not really. I just know asking about this is a terrible idea. But like a moth to a light ... Do you believe any of these borders are or were legitimate under Dr Jay's criteria?
I said "debatable". I use that word because, though the UN conferred a legality on the state of Israel in 1947, the circumstances upon which the UN vote was won might raise doubt in the average Palestinian's mind. But like you, let's not get into it.
Its not a matter of that. Both of have legitimate claims to a small parcel of land. But there is a 'reality on the ground" now. Israel has existed since 1948. We can all debate back and forth as to whether or not its initial existence was legitimate, moral, or smart. No one can debate the fact that the UN initially mandated its existence and the country of Israel exists now. Going over past land claims, maps, religious claims, persecution claims, body counts etc, while great for internet posting numbers, gets one nowhere. Sooner or later Israel has to realize that the settlements make them weaker, not stronger. Sooner or later, Israelis and Palestinians have to reverse the cycle of violence. Sooner or later, Israel has to take a leap of faith that an improved life for the majority of Palestinians with their own government, land ownership and opportunity will cause them to renounce violence. If I were Israeli, I would be strongly in favor of creating two Palestinian states ASAP and dealing with them as soverign neighbors. Its the only way this is going to work in the future. I can fully understand why Israel takes the attititude that they do (although I don't agree with it): 1. They are strong enough right now that they can 2. There is not enought internal or external pressure to make them change 3. Their governmental system current makes small, fringe ultrareligious parties have an undo influence on the government 4. Why take a chance on changing anything drastically, given the 3 things above.
Well, not really. Apart from anything else if we're going to argue the area they're entitled to was 'UN mandated', you can't turn around and refuse to accept all the subsequent UN rulings, can you. Regarding the history part, again, there's great dispute as to what credence one can give to the claims in the bible and, of course, even THAT ignores the obvious point... that the fact that somebody's ancestors lived there thousands of years ago doesn't mean they're entitled to come and claim it any time time they want and there's CERTAINLY no legal basis for that concept. Apart from anything else many peoples have controlled that land and they can't ALL be entitled to it. The blunt, albeit unpalatable, truth is that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from large sections of their land in what, if anyone else had done it, would be counted as a crime. The fact that others got involved, (who had nothing to do with it), to try and recover the situation for political reasons is beside the point.
Right, so there's no debate, this is how it is a-rabs, it's the reality on the ground. I know I'm being harsh, but honestly, unless you can have a conversation and be open minded about why palestinians might not have thought it was fair, then you can't have a conversation at all.
really? Gosh, these Jews just keep getting off the hook so easily. And considering the history of Israel since 1948, it's kind of hard to keep accepting all these ridiculous UN rulings. I don't think there were rules stating the scenarios of what, 5-6 armies attacking you upon your creation. Forget the bible, there is myriad of evidence to suggest Jews lived in that region for thousands of years. As far as Palestinians being ethnically cleansed, that's just patently false. Misplaced through acts of war, self-defense, certainly. If anything, the ethnically cleansed part lies on the Jordanian hands.
What the EU needs is pretty much everything that defines a democracy. I stopped caring about my country quite a few years ago. However, silly as this country has become in a short period of time, people have an actual voice here (now for a brain, but that's another matter) Nobody ever asked me shit about the EU. The ONE TIME they did, all I heard from pro-EU politicians was how those not in agreement were stupid, frustrated, whatever. And all the valid points that were brought to the table were simply ignored. I can take a hint, if you know what I mean. The EU is a runaway train. Sooner or later it will crash. The sooner, the better and less messy it will be. BTW, on-topic: it's probably the only thing Wilders and I would agree on.
Please. What have we been having, if not a discussion about this ? Can you show me where I have cut off debate ? So basically, if a person disagrees with you, you accuse them for not being open minded ? Looking back through recorded history, countries have come and gone, as have borders. Some of these changes in the current world map were due to historical issues, some due to ethnic affiliations, some due to war, and some due to just stupidity by empire builders or empire losers. Anyone can draw an artificial "line in the historical sand" and claim that accuracy and moral righteousness begins at that particular line. I choose not to do this because I don't see the logic, nor do I see how that gets the parties out of the current dispute. I think the "reality on the ground' is a place to start the debate. The reality on the ground is that the West Bank and Gaza are Palestinian and, no matter how much Israeli's fear their national security, the future is independance for those areas. I am happy to discuss it further. Please tell me what you would do with the current situation vis a vis the '67 borders.
I didn't say you were not being open minded. And I said I was being harsh, it's just that when you say things like that, it's heard by an Arab with the exact opposite opinion as if the validity and legitimacy of the 1948 vote is off the table discussion wise. I don't think we feel very different about the situation, actually. Just because I beleive the 1948 vote is debatable doesn't mean I don't think Israel has a right to exist, but everyone on all sides needs to acknowledge the truth.
It's always amazing to me how, somehow, the institution that made Israel possible and has supported its right to exist for 6 decades is so demonized by Israel supporters.
Hey Andy, you can take the moral high ground when you hand back Northern Ireland. So sorry Israel didn't do the ethnic cleansing properly or gentlemanly, the way the English would have. I'm sure you usually the offending ethnics a spot of tea first. In that, I agree - Israel has been remiss. As for the fact that it's only the Jews that seem to get away with all these dastardly things - you're quire right. After all, the Belgians have been repeatedly forced to apologize for the mass murder of the Congolese just 50 years before the brutal founding of Israel. What? No? I suppose it's a matter of degrees - they only killed 20% of the Congolese population. It's not like they were Jews!
Well, a bit of a generalisation, (we can say the same about quite a few people to be fair), but essentially correct. The you can't quote the UN one establishing Israel as the OP did, can you. That was my point. Even if that were true in the simplistic way you present it there, I'm not sure what that's got to do with it, tbh. That can be said of lots of people, can't it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_periods_in_the_region_of_Palestine Frankly, on that basis I'm probably entitled to come and grab a bit due to crusades. Maybe you know of somewhere? I'd like a place that's not too sunny though as I don't like the heat but, on the other hand I DO like oranges. I'll leave the details to you Nah, look, let's not play silly buggers mate. You know as well as I do that the main argument in favour of a Jewish homeland in that particular place is from the bible. There's almost NO archaeological evidence to support it and what there is, (established more recently), supports the idea of the 'kingdom' not being united except for a period of about 90 years. Misplaced? What, like my car-keys the other day y'mean? .... Come on! The strongest argument in favour of the existing arrangement is the 'facts on the ground' one. The problem with THAT is it mainly relies on the barrel of a, (often US supplied), gun. That's why you have to come to some arrangement with the other people that live out there. It's as simple, (and as complicated), as that.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. The UN was hardly universally favorable to Israel in 1948. In 2011, Lybia sits on the UN Human Rights Commission. So you'll pardon me if I take a somewhat cynical view of their impartiality. Or, lest we forget, in 2001 at Durban the UN World Conference against Racism spent most of its time debating the truly evil racists in the world - the Israelis. I do hope Sudan's Omar al-Bashir was OK with that!
You're so right Andy. If the one thing we've learned over the past two thousand years is that Jews tend to get away with anything and everything.